UMED HOSPITAL MEDICARE RELIEF SOCIETY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC /ITO, EXEMPTION WARDM,, BANGALORE. JODHPUR

10A [section 10AA], clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12A section 44AB [section 44DA, section 50B). section 80-1A, section 80-1B, section 80-IC. section 80- ID section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E. [section 115JB or section 115VW] for to give a notice under Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section

ITO, WARD-1, CHITTORGARH , CHITTORGARH vs. M/S. C.K. MOTORS , CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad118/Jodh/2020 (Assessment Year- 2012-13) The Ito Vs M/S. C.K. Motors Ward-1 10A, Old Indusrial Chittorgarh Area, Chittorgarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aadfc 8845 L

10A, Old Indusrial Chittorgarh Area, Chittorgarh (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO.AADFC 8845 L Assessee By Shri Gopichand Sarawwat, CA Revenue By Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 22/03/2023 Date of 23/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARMER vs. PUSHP RAJ BOHRA, JALORE

The appeal of the revenue is allowed, in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Bleito, Ward-1, Barmer. Vs. Pushp Raj Bohra, M-09, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore - 343001. Pan No. Aanpb4456C Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A. Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 01.03.2025. Order Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Id. National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac/Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 08.02.2024 In Respect Of Assessment Year: 2017-18 Where The Department Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Is Justified In Facts & Law In Directing To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income, By Ignoring The Fact That Assesse & His Business Concerns Are Engaged In The Business Of Property & Real Estate Development & Huge Expenses Of Rs. 8.72 Cr. Were Incurred By Assessee On Development Of Projects To Earn Profit. 2. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Directing The Ao To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Income From Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income By Merely Following The Order Of Hon'Ble

disallowance made by the AO, therefore, the AO is directed to allow full expenditure so incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,90,029/-. We direct accordingly." 8.2In view of the fact that the issue in question has already been decided by ITAT in the case of appellant's own case in AY 2015-16, the same being binding